My Turn: There’s no substitute for the college experience

There has been increasing criticism of traditional college education in the past decade or so. Much of the focus of such criticism has been focused on cost escalation and the irrelevance of college degrees to work readiness. As a reaction to these concerns, and ever-improving computer technology, there has been a rapid push toward online degrees.

Nationally, the University of Phoenix, Capella University and Arizona State University are most active in recruiting students in New Hampshire. Locally, Southern New Hampshire University has emerged as one of the fastest-growing online universities in the country.

There is no question that technology plays a critical role in education. As a college professor myself, I find access to materials and information vastly improved with the advancement of technology. It helps enhance curriculum, diversity and expansion of resources for information, and, I hate to say it, entertainment value that makes learning more palatable to students and increases their engagement.

In addition, use of technology in teaching at all levels allows education to meet contemporary cultural and social patterns in students’ lives. Our students are very technology savvy and it’s part of their daily lives, therefore, it is only natural for them to expect it as a significant part of their educational experience as well.

But when I look at the emerging trends of 100 percent online degrees, I become alarmed for two reasons: First, it has to do with the unwise transformation of how we deliver or even define education, and second, and perhaps more importantly, it has to do with human development.

An education that is 100 percent online is dubious at best.

Yes, you can deliver curriculum and information, and certainly one can gain knowledge by reading a book, watching a lecture and/or seeing a video. However, teaching and learning is far more than dissemination of information. It is the ability to metaphorically chew the information into smaller bits, integrate the information and digest it so that the salient material is not only extracted but also absorbed into one’s mind.

That requires a dedicated space, a dedicated time and dedicated people. By committing to getting to a classroom and engaging in active listening, asking questions, getting answers from another human being whose vocal intonations, body language and expressions can convey what is seminal to the subject at hand, presents information in a far more meaningful way than passively reading a book or watching a video.

So, while online resources are critical, online education is a term that redefines education in ways that is detrimental to the way our minds grow, expand and learn.

In my classes, when I show a video, we stop the video at critical times, discuss what we just saw, argue about its merits, connect it to what the class learned before, originate new questions or lines of inquiry and make sure everyone is coming along with the level of understanding necessary for competency in the subject matter.

When I assign students to read an online article, watch a related documentary and to discuss it the following week, each person comes back with a different perception. By discussing these perceptions in the classroom, we get to create a multi-dimensional view of the information and critique its value.

The presence of students and faculty in a classroom offers this critical capacity that is not available in online classes

There is another, even more disconcerting and significant problem with 100 percent online learning, and that is the limitation of opportunity for growth and development for young students.

As a former guidance director of a large school, I used to give a lot of lectures to parents of seniors sending off their children to colleges. I used to tell them that college is for the three L’s: learning, loving and living.

What I explained was that, yes, we send our children to college to learn a subject and develop skills that allow them to be gainfully employed and self-sufficient, but getting a degree is not the only thing that makes you self-sufficient.

Ages 17 to 22 are critical years for gaining confidence in independent social settings, learning how to manage and negotiate emotions and intimacy, learning to resolve conflicts, independently self-advocate and so on.

There are hundreds of developmental tasks that are waiting to be explored and honed during this time. Absent any other social institutions that can offer an opportunity for such developmental challenges and growth, students gaining 100 percent online degrees may demonstrate narrowly defined knowledge competencies, but will not have the advantage of exploring life in meaningful ways.

A college education is more than just gaining work-related knowledge and skills for students who are graduating high school. It’s about learning to confront adult issues independently and having structured and abundant opportunities to put oneself to the test. There is a reason why humans collectively decided to create such institutions for their young citizens. We need to understand and honor those reasons. College education is not just about creating workers, it’s about helping evolve our young citizens in ways we cannot do if they stay at home.

Finally, the push toward fast-track, “cheap” college degrees (as some of the aforementioned colleges would like to call them) is partly fed by a degree-obsessed society and corporations that are no longer willing to underwrite skill development of their workforce.

It is more cost-effective for corporations to have students pay, with taxpayer support, for all the needed skills so that they can enter the limited available positions work-ready. Degrees have become substitute evidence for competence both in skills and in intellectual capacity. And so, the illusion that to advance in a career you must have a degree is perpetuated because it supports a vast industry in the business of conferring such pieces of paper.

Of course some degrees are indeed earned with a great deal of effort and vast amounts of learning. But the push to dilute the idea of what a degree means and how it is earned will have a downward force on all degrees. Degrees are not a guarantee of competence. Every bad engineer, doctor, lawyer, college professor or hair stylist is degreed and even licensed.

Yes, college education is excessively expensive, but the answer is not diminishing the college experience. The answer is to remove greed from college operations. There are many ways to reduce cost of college education. There is also the matter of public policy. College education is expensive to individuals because society has not dedicated sufficient tax-based support for it.

If we tighten excesses and wasteful spending in colleges and improve substantially our social support for college education, we can offer our young people the critical opportunity for growth and development. Getting an online degree in 2½ years is not the answer to our higher education dilemma.

(Foad Afshar is a psychologist in Concord and professor of education and psychology at the New Hampshire Institute of Art.)

In getting feedback on the possible merger of Southern New Hampshire University and the New Hampshire Institute of Art, I have been struck by the reactions to our online programs among some critics. Among the misconceptions has been the idea that we would try to impose online learning on NHIA students. Another, increasingly tired notion is that online learning is …

Yeah, paragraph #10 of I can see it now: The local Movie Theatre now showing the XYZ film with subtitles and for no extra $charge in a special screening, Professor FOAD AFSHAR will "stop the video at critical times, discuss what we just saw, argue about its merits, connect it to what the class learned before, originate new questions or lines of inquiry and make sure everyone is coming along with the level of understanding necessary for competency in the subject matter. "

Jim... wrote:

08/22/2014

"The answer is to remove greed from college operations" - would that be like the 12% pay raise demanded by UNH professors a few years ago during the recession or when they said they would refused to work summer classes causing the school to lose money? As usual the "college" answer to uncontrolled college costs is - tax payers just pay more. Colleges have never had a reason to control costs, they just asked for more tax payer dollars. It's time the students actually learned from the professors - refuse to enroll until the cost come down. How would all those colleges do with zero enrollment for a semester or two. How is Market Basket doing after a few weeks of no shoppers, Walgreens just stated they would not move the headquarters off shore because the public said they would stop shopping in their stores. Students need to stop begging for bigger student loans and start demanding for LOWER costs.

LaurieFenwick wrote:

08/22/2014

A vote for Shaheen is a vote for Bloomberg:
Control of the Senate could lie in the fortunes of female candidates and the deep-pocketed donors, like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who are sending piles of cash their way.
So far this election cycle, donors have handed over $46 million to a collection of political committees and candidates linked to Emily's List, which backs female contenders who support abortion rights. The Emily's List network of committees raised more than most other outside groups, including the GOP-backed American Crossroads and the anti-tax Club for Growth.
According to campaign finance documents filed Tuesday, one of the newest benefactors for Emily's List was Bloomberg. The billionaire former mayor wrote a $2 million check last month to Women Vote, the super PAC run by the group.
The check put the mayor's giving to all super PACs this cycle at $11 million, and Bloomberg's total tally was likely to grow ahead of a Wednesday deadline for many groups to disclose their July fundraising.

Ducklady wrote:

08/22/2014

Did you read the article??? And are you aware the Comment section is for commenting on the related article???
Why are you wasting our time like this?

LaurieFenwick wrote:

08/22/2014

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee?
Labor Secretary-turned-college professor Robert Reichâs latest lectures on income inequality don't square with his $240,000 salary for teaching just one class, economists tell FoxNews.com.
Reich, who served in the Clinton White House and is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, took on the topic of âWork and Worthâ in an Aug. 2 post on his blog. In it, he lamented that there is âlittle or no relationshipâ between what someone is paid and their actual worth to society, and he wrapped up his post by calling for student loans to be forgiven for graduates in fields like social work, nursing and teaching.
"The moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion; itâs insider trading, obscene CEO pay, wage theft from ordinary workers, Wall Streetâs continued gambling addiction, corporate payoffs to friendly politicians, and the billionaire takeover of our democracy," Reich wrote in a separate Facebook post.
But a professor who earns a one-percenter's income for a relatively easy workload has a tough time complaining about how unfair the economy is, according to some critics.

RedBird wrote:

08/22/2014

This is a nonsensical post. The University was not forced to hire this person, but they chose to for a perceived value via the free market. Further, there is little relationship between what many corporate leaders get paid and their value to society. Same with professional athletes. Again, its what the market bears. Now if you want to rail on people not getting paid for their value to society, think about how we comparatively underpay police, firefighters, and school teachers.